Fact or Fiction

The thing I like about writing fiction is you can't just make stuff up. (I know, look at me opening with the counter-intuitive statement.)

It's true: every work of fiction has (should have) its own internal logic, and once it's been established, the author has to work within it. In non-fiction, you don't have to justify the events that occur. You simply say, 'It's a true story - it happened to my aunt/grandfather/neighbour's gardener.' If the reader thinks the story is unlikely, that it didn't happen, the author's response is 'Well, it did.' End of.

In fiction, that's not a good enough explanation though. Readers won't swallow wild coincidences or sudden changes in characters' personalities, even though this technically happens often enough in real life. But they'll swallow all sorts of impossibilities as long as they happen logically.

For example, my novel involves one instance of time-travel. 'Time slip' I think is the term for it. It happens once; it's just a plot device to get my mc into a different period. But I was workshopping some of it in class the other day, and the whole discussion got hijacked by the mechanics of time-travel.

'But how does it work?' they wanted to know.
'Er...I dunno,' was my incisive reply.
'Well is it a wormhole? A space-time rip?'
'Um. Maybe. Ok. Yes... a wormhole.'

What I wanted to say was, 'Who bloody cares? It's not important. Do I look like a physicist? What's important is what happens afterward.'

I didn't, because once I thought about it, I was fascinated that what I hadn't thought of as more than a plot-device other people saw as part of the plot. They wanted the logic of it, even though time-travel is, in real life, impossible.

But then I realised my book is not at all sci-fi-y, and there are no physicists in it to explain how the time-travel works, so I changed my mind.

'Um, actually, it's not a wormhole, it's magic.'
'Oh, ok then.'

See? It might be impossible, but as long as it's justified, readers are happy.

Word of the Week: Quizzical

I was asked this week to read over a short story by a fellow writer. It was a very affecting story of love and loss - all the good bits - in which he had used 'quizzical' not once, but twice. And I didn't hesitate a second before running my pen through both of them. Didn't even explain why - just left a comment in the margin after the second one: 'Aaaaargh! Here it is again!'

Don't worry, we're good enough friends that he didn't take offence at such unhelpful censoring. But he did defend his use of the word. 'What's wrong with it? It perfectly describes the look she (his main character) had.' I have to concede he's right. According to the old ACOD (Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary):

'quizzical adj. 1 expressing or done with mild or amused perplexity. 2 strange; comical.'

The situation in his story definitely demanded a mildly perplexed look from his MC. So I was forced to confront my prejudice against the word. It wasn't because it was inappropriate or misused. It was a little bit because it reminds me of Enid Blyton books,* but mostly it's because it's such an ugly word!

Yes, as far as quizzical is concerned, it's a question of form over function. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Those two 'z's combined with the 'q'. Awful. Outside of a game of Scrabble, I never want to see them in any word in front of me.

But is that reason enough to scribble it out? Surely it's hard enough choosing the best word to use without worrying about whether its physical form is going to be off-putting to sensitive readers like me.

I'm inclined to think with words like 'quizzical', using it once is ok (Oh, if you must) but any more than that is distracting. And I mean once in a whole novel. Ok, maybe twice.



*I love Enid Blyton's books, but her prose isn't quite suited to contemporary Australian short stories!

Myths and Symbols

Gosh, it's been a busy week over in the block or not corner! I started back at my writing and editing diploma, and what with evening classes, internships and homework, haven't had much 'sitting and thinking' time.

So to save me coming up with my own post topics, I've decided to do a few on what we've done in classes.

First up, in my class on myths and symbols and how they're used by writers, we were asked to think of a story that has 'stayed with us' - and why.

The story that I first thought of was the Greek myth of Demeter and Persephone. Demeter's daughter Persephone is kidnapped by Hades and taken to the underworld. She's eventually rescued, but because she ate six pomegranate seeds while she was there, Zeus rules she has to stay with Hades for six months every year. Demeter is the goddess of fertility, so for those six months every year she refuses to make anything grow, which is why we have winter every year (although I think in Australia it would be summer!).

The reason this story has stayed with me? Mostly it's because when I was a kid reading it, I had no idea what a pomegranate was, and why you'd eat the seeds. And the explanation for the seasons is very cool.

But, apart from fascinating yours truly over the course of her lifetime, this story has been around for thousands of years. That makes me think I should look at it more closely, and try to learn something!

Read On

It's the silly season and I've not been feeling that inspired. Too busy Christmas shopping and wondering why all the dust in my house is the same colour (that is, grey). I mean, dust is not a thing in itself, is it? It's a sum of its parts, so why does it end up so uniform? (To which most sensible people would say, 'Who cares? Vacuum your floors, you slob. Problem solved.' To which I would reply, Problem not solved, merely post-phoned.)

Anyway, further to a previous post voicing doubts as to the benefits of reading lots while writing, here is a post by Nicola Morgan at Help! I Need a Publisher (very useful blog), in which she gives some quite reasonable reasons for writers reading a lot.

To Read or not to Read

We’re always being told to read, read, read. That good writers are great readers. But sometimes I’m not convinced that this is always useful. What if you’re trying to write a serious scene in your novel/short story/feature article but you’ve been reading Douglas Adams and your characters all become slightly weird and start pining for cups of tea? Or if you’re trying to be literary, but you’ve been reading Raymond Chandler and things turn out a bit like this interpretation of Hamlet. Or worse, if you’re trying to write crime fiction and you’ve been reading Raymond Chandler and your work turns out like Raymond Chandler's.

If you’re someone who finds it easy to imitate styles of writing, then maybe it’s better not to read anything at all while you’re trying to write your own stuff. It's difficult to not pick up another author's style, and the stronger a style, the more likely it is to stay in your head and take over your own. I admit, this is just my own experience, and other people might not have any problems of this kind at all (I'm the sort of person who unconsciously mimics other people's accents when speaking to them). Still, despite the mantra about readers and writers, maybe sometimes it's better to declutter your brain and just focus on your own style. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it don't necessarily make good writing.

What I'm reading

Yes -- all at once. I'm not much of a multi-tasker, and it's giving me a bit of a headache - but they're all so good!

Something Happened, Joseph Heller
Just started it so not quite sure what it's about yet.

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Susanna Clarke
Alternative Regency England with magicians, faeries and quaint manners.

Finnikin of the Rock, Melina Marchetta
YA fantasy a long way from Alibrandi.

Beloved, Toni Morrison
Ex-slaves haunted by a baby's ghost. Can see why it's a classic.

Catch-22, Heller again
God I love this book! Reading it for just second time, at same time as Something Happened, in an attempt to analyse Heller's style, which I think forms mostly around his talent for the absurd and the incidental.